Loading...
1987-03230-Minutes for Meeting February 06,1987 Recorded 2/18/1987J VOL 81?.OGE 716 g7- 3230 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING ON DOG CONTROL ISSUE 1917 FIR 4: IS FEBRUARY 6, 1987 MARY suu Chair Prante called the meeting to order a(CiI~'~;6'. Commissioners Throop and Maudlin were in attendance. R1 t~ham, Legal Counsel, was also present. Michael Mullens, 150 N. Fir St., Sisters, stated that on the 23rd of January at approximately 10:30 a.m., he was contacted by Travis, a ranch hand from the Patterson ranch, and told that three dogs had attacked and seriously wounded four llamas at the ranch. Mr. Mullens stated that he was given a description of the dogs: one was a large malamute-akita cross that he was told hung out at the general store, a small bull-type dog that was dark in color, and the third was a dark-colored doberman. He then stated that Travis also told him that two of the ranch hands were within 40 feet of the attacking dogs and could positively identify them. Mr. Mullens then stated that he began to patrol Sisters looking for dogs that matched these descriptions. He further stated that he located two dogs in the area of Elm Street between Fir and Spruce and that the larger of the dogs, the malamute-akita cross, had obvious blood stains on its fur. He stated that at that time he went back to the Patterson ranch and contacted the two ranch hands for positive identification, and as he was driving down the street approaching the two dogs, one of the ranch hands, Farrel, pointed out the malamute from a distance as being one of the dogs involved in the attack. He further stated that when he stopped the car, they observed the second dog as being a pit-bull and that blood was visible on this dog also. Mr. Mullens then stated that he took the pit bull back to the police department and at the time of loading, wool was visible in this dogs teeth. He stated that shortly after this, the animal control officer (Nancy Jernigan) from Deschutes County arrived and that they proceeded ta=- tY~ee residence of Charles Shane Bowlin, where his dog was lzayirgw,,out in the driveway. He then stated that large amounts of blood`!§re visible on his head and chest, front legs and rearend. He` te? stated that the dog was photographed and taken back to Sisters_ Police Department. He further stated that the pit bull wad also photographed at SPD, then both dogs were taken to the a Uma shelter by Nancy Jernigan. He went on to state that while M4`. J ~e=i.gan was taking the dogs to the shelter, Shane Bowlin had ccMe nto the Sisters PD asking why his dog had been picked up ar-d h6 was told that it had been involved in an attack on llamas. He stated that when Ms. Jernigan arrived back at Sisters PD, they made contact with Mr. Colvard at his residence and Mr. Bowlin was also there. Mr. Mullens then stated that Ms. Jernigan's purpose was to seek a release to have the animals put down, but both subjects refused to have this done and both insisted that the blood on both dogs be tested. He stated that Mr. Bowlin and Mr. Colvard both believed that the blood belonged to some other animal. DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 1 x d~ 00 VOL PAGE 717 Rick Isham asked Mr. Mullens if he observed the photographs that the animal control officer took. He replied that he did and also observed the llamas personally. Rick Isham asked Mr. Mullens to explain the pictures to the Board and to state where the pictures were taken. He stated that photo 1 is of the akita-malamute mix at the time it was picked up at Mr. Bowlin's residence with blood visible on its chest. He stated that photo 2 appears to be taken at the humane society, but he was not involved in this one. He stated that photo 3 is a picture of the pit bull with blood visible on its head taken at the Sisters PD. He stated that photos 4 and 5 he had not previously seen. He stated that photos 6, 7, 8, and 9 show the damage done to the llamas at the Patterson ranch. Mr. Isham asked Mr. Mullens if the dogs in the pictures are the dogs he picked up in conjunction with the animal control officer. He replied that yes they were. Rick Isham requested that the photos become part of the record. Chair Prante swore in Nancy Jernigan. Nancy Jernigan, PO Box 987, Redmond, stated that 1/23/87 at approximately 10:30 a.m., 911 dispatched her to Sisters stating that three dogs had attacked four llamas at the Patterson Ranch. She then stated that she met with Officer Mullens in Sisters, who had radioed her to meet him at 221 Elm St. where he had followed an akita-malamute. She then stated that she examined the akita- malamute, finding hair on its nose and blood on the top of the head, under the chin, chest and legs. Rick Isham asked her what type of hair was found on the dogs nose. Ms. Jernigan stated that she suspected it to be the hair from a llama. Ms. Jernigan went on to state that blood was also found on the feet, the tail and the hindend. She stated that she picked up the dog and went to Sisters PD to pick up the female pit bull who had also been seen on the Patterson Ranch in this attack. She stated that the pit bull had llama hair on its nose, around its mouth, but none was found in its teeth; there was also blood on this dog's head and chest. She stated that she impounded this dog also. Ms. Jernigan then stated that she left the office to search the area for a doberman that had also been seen in the attack, but it was not found. She stated that she then proceeded to the Patterson Ranch to speak with the Pattersons who stated that they did not want to press charges, but that they did want the dogs picked up and put to sleep. She then stated that she contacted two ranch hands, Farrel Rothauge and Zygmunt Sawiel, who were the people who saw the attack take place. She then stated that she started to take pictures of the four llamas who were injured and being worked on by Dr. Harrison and Kay Patterson. Ms. Jernigan stated that she received two statements from the ranch hands then proceeded to patrol the Sisters area, DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 2 VOL 81PAGE (1O again unable to locate the doberman. She then stated that she impounded the dogs at the humane society and went back to Sisters where Officer Mullens accompanied her to the residence of Ray Bowlin. She stated that she had been called by Shane and asked to meet there. She stated that she explained to Mr. Bowlin what had happened with his son's dog and gave him a copy of the ordinances and explained that the dog would have to be picked up. Ms. Jernigan stated that Ray told her that he was not sure where his son was, but that he would try to find him. She then stated that she and Officer Mullens proceeded to Darrell Colvard's residence, who owns the pit bull and explained to both Darrel and Shane, who was at the residence at the time, what the situation was. She stated that Shane was irate and would not listen to any explanations nor accept copies of the County ordinances and that he threatened that if his dog were put to sleep, he would shoot the rest of the llamas at the ranch and threatened the Pattersons. Ms. Jernigan stated that she knew she wasn't going to get anywhere and did not get a signed statement so she and Officer Mullens left the residence. She then stated that she went back to Sisters PD where Mr. Bowlin came in and was given two statements for the boys to sign. She further stated that Ray told her that the boys did want to sign statements and that he would call her when they were completed. She stated that when she was talking with Shane, he told her that if they did not take evidence from the dogs, that he would sue Deschutes County. Ms. Jernigan then stated that when she got back to Sisters she called the humane society to have fecal samples taken from the dogs, which was done. Ms. Jernigan then stated that on 1/24/87 at approximately 1:15 p.m., she went back to Sisters PD to meet with Officer Mullens, who said that there was another witness. She then stated that they proceeded to a residence on Pine St. and spoke to Mr. Sokol who saw three dogs in the area at approximately 10:30 a.m. on the 23rd and made a statement to that effect. Ms. Jernigan stated that she then proceeded to the llama ranch and picked up tissue and evidence, which was taken to the Oregon State Police Lab. She stated that she was given an estimate of the llamas worth at approximately $15-25,000 each. She then stated that she belived all the llamas were still living at this time. Rick Isham asked Ms. Jernigan what the relation of the Patterson Ranch is to the City of Sisters. She stated that it is just outside the city limits on the MacKenzie Highway. Rick Isham asked her to review the photos and indicate what the pictures depict and where they were taken. Ms. Jernigan stated that the picture of the malamute-akita was taken outside 221 Elm St. She stated that this dog is in custody and owned by Shane Bowlin. She stated that picture #2 is of the akita at the humane society in Bend. She stated that #3 is of the pit bull owned by Darrel Colvard and taken to show the blood on the head. She stated that #4 is also of the pit bull taken at the humane society by them. She stated that #5 is a picture of the malamute-akita showing his DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 3 V0L SIPAGE 717 legs, feet, and chest taken by the humane society. She stated that #6 is the hindend of one of the llamas from the Patterson Ranch involved in the attack. She stated that #7 is the face of one of the llamas, showing bites on the lip and jaw. She stated that #8 is a picture of a llama with the hindend completely torn out. She stated that #9 is also the hindend of a llama that has been chewed up. Rick Isham asked Mr. Jernigan if the pit bull in the pictures is the one that was taken into custody. She replied that yes it was. Ms. Jernigan then stated that the dogs had been described to her as the two dogs involved in the incident before she picked them up. Rick Isham asked who had described the dogs to her. She replied that they were described to Officer Mullens at the time, before she arrived. Rick Isham asked Ms. Jernigan if she looked at these dogs to determine if they had possibly been involved in a fight or something of that nature. She replied yes, but after she saw blood in the mouth and under the chin and saw no bites on the dogs, she determined that they had not been involved in a fight. Rick Isham asked her if she could tell the Commission what the findings of the crime lab were. Ms. Jernigan replied that examination of the stool sample from the pit bull reveals hair that is different than its own hair and consistent with llama hair and examination of the stool sample of the akita-malamute reveal hair that is consistent with its own hair. She further stated that the hair in the akita-malamute sample was white, and the hair in the pit bull sample was brown. This evidence was accepted into the record. Rick Isham asked Nancy Jernigan if the samples in the crime lab report are from the dogs in custody. She replied that yes they were, that the humane society had submitted the samples. Chair Prante asked about exhibit #5, a blood sample. Ms. Jernigan replied that she picked up a sample of llama blood, tissue, and hair that was left at the site of the attack, but the crime lab could not do anything with these samples having never worked with llamas before and could not match these samples with samples taken from the dogs. Rick Isham asked Ms. Jernigan if she reviewed a map to determine the location of the Patterson Ranch within Deschutes County in relation to the City of Sisters. She replied that yes she did and that the ranch is outside the city limits of Sisters. Commissioner Maudlin asked if at the time the dogs were picked up if there were any sign of recent injury to the them. Ms. Jernigan replied no, just signs of blood but no injuries. Farrel Rothauge was called to the stand and sworn in by Chair Prante. Farrel Rothauge, 69229 Easy St., Sisters. Rick Isham asked Mr. Rothauge to explain to the Board who he worked for and what he observed on 1/23. Mr Farrel stated that he works for Dick and DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 4 VOL 81PAGE 72o Kay Patterson and that he and one other ranch hand were on their way to feed. He stated that he was driving the vehicle and Zee was doing the gates when he heard Zee yelling and the llamas making noise. He stated that he got out to see what he was yelling about and saw him going across the fences trying to chase off three dogs that had one llama down. He further stated that the pit bull was chewing on the rearend of the llama and the akita was over the llama, but he did not actually see the doberman attacking the llama. Mr. Rothauge then stated that the doberman was growling at Zee, but they were able to chase the dogs off, and immediately called the barn and told them what happened and asked for a vet. He stated that Dick Patterson had asked them to get the dogs to hold as evidence, but the dogs were headed into town. He then stated that he saw someone at the Sokol residence chase the dogs off their property. He stated that they then turned their attention to the llamas. Chair Prante asked Mr. Rothauge if he could describe the dogs in detail. Mr. Rothauge stated that he knew the malamute-akita as soon as he saw it because it hung out at the general store. He stated that he had not seen the other two dogs before. He then stated that the other dog was a pit bull, small with a dark brown color mix and the third dog was a solid brown doberman. Chair Prante showed him two pictures and asked him if those were two of the dogs he recognized at the scene. He replied yes. Rick Isham asked him to identify the two dogs in the picture. He replied the pit bull and the akita. Rick Isham asked if he saw the doberman later that day. Mr. Rothauge replied no he was not found. Rick Isham asked what the relation was of the Sokol Ranch and the one he worked on. He replied that they were acquaintances and that property was leased from the Solol's for the llamas during the summer. Rick Isham asked if the Sokol ranch was to the east of his ranch. He replied yes that it is directly toward town from his ranch. Rick Isham asked if the attack occured on the field that is part of the Patterson Ranch. He replied yes that it was Patterson property. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Rothauge if the other ranch hand had seen the doberman attack the llamas. He replied that he did not believe that his co-worker could swear to seeing the doberman on the llama. Zygmunt Sawiel was called to the stand and sworn in by Chair Prante. Zygmunt Sawiel, 1908 NW Saginaw, Bend. Rick Isham asked him to explain to the Board what he saw on 1/23 and who he worked for. Mr. Sawiel replied that he works part-time on Dick's ranch and knows the llama ranch well. He stated that on this day he was working with Farrel, feeding the llamas and heard an unusual noise from them. He then stated that he looked behind the DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 5 V01- 8 GE 721 feeders and saw a llama down. He stated that he saw the dogs and called Farrel to help him because the dogs were in with the llamas. Mr. Sawiel stated that as he came closer, he saw the dogs near the hindends of the llamas. He stated that he got closer still and the dogs turned toward him, but ran off when Farrel came into view. He stated that the llamas were down and bloody. Chair Prante showed him pictures and asked if these were two of the dogs he observed. Mr. Sawiel replied he thought so. Commissioner Throop asked him if he actually saw the doberman engaged with the llamas as the other two had been. He replied yes that the doberman had his head down at the llama and that the pit bull was acting somewhat playful and nipping at the llama and the akita was on top of the llama. Commissioner Throop then asked if the doberman then directed his attention toward him. Mr. Sawiel replied yes that the doberman looked up at him. Commissioner Throop asked him if he was afraid for his own safety. He replied yes. Jim Whitney was called to the stand and sworn in by Chair Prante. Jim Whitney, Deputy for Deschutes County, PO Box 445, Sisters. Rick Isham asked Mr. Whitney to explain what his involvement was with respect to the incident and to the search for the third dog. Mr. Whitney stated that he was contacted about noon on the 23rd of January by Officer Mullens who told him about the llama attack at the Patterson's. He then stated that they attempted to locate the doberman by checking numerous areas and with people who are known to own dobermans, but were unsuccessful. Rick Isham asked Mr. Whitney if he had any other involvement with the case. He replied that yes, at about 3:00 p.m. on the same date, he was at the Sisters PD when Shane Bowlin came to the office. Mr. Whitney stated that he explained to Shane that his dog had been picked up for being involved in an attack on llamas. He further stated that Mr. Bowlin became very irate at hearing this and threatened to kill the llamas before his dog would be killed. Rick Isham asked if Mr. Bowlin was making claim to the dog at that time, and Mr. Whitney replied yes.. Mona Lyons was called to the stand and sworn in by Chair Prante. Mona Lyons, Manager of the Humane Society Shelter, 17879 Grimm Rd., Bend. Rick Isham asked her to explain her receipt of these dogs, to identfy them from the pictures, and to explain her role in sample taking. Ms. Lyons stated that the dogs were brought in by Nancy Jernigan at about 1:45 on the afternoon of the 23rd and were left as is usual in the shelter and at 4:30 p.m., Ms. Jernigan called her back and asked her to examine the dogs and remove any hair samples that were covered with blood and take pictures if possible, which was done. She further stated that DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 6 VOIL b? WAGE 722 stool samples from each dog were collected the next day. Rick Isham asked Ms. Lyons to review the pictures indicating which ones she took. Ms. Lyons stated that photo #5 is a picture taken by the humane society of the akita-malamute showing the legs covered with blood. Rick Isham asked if this was the animal that Nancy Jernigan had brought in, and Ms. Lyons replied yes. She stated that #2 is the same animal, the akita. She stated that #4 is the pit bull brindle female showing blood on the head, as is #3. Rick Isham asked if this was the pit bull that Nancy brought in, and Ms. Lyons replied yes. Rick Isham asked if these were the two animals that fecal samples were taken from. Ms. Lyon replied yes. Cynthia Komurka was called to the stand and sworn in by Chair Prante. Cynthia Komurka, 628 NE 12th, Bend, member of kennel staff at the Humane Society. Rick Isham asked Ms. Komurka to explain to the Board what role she played in the reception of this dog at the humane society. She stated that on the 23rd she was working at the back of the kennel and that Ms. Jernigan brought in two dogs from Sisters and gave her the details of the dogs. She further stated that all she did then was to put them in the kennels. She went on to state that at 4:30 p.m. on the same day, Mona Lyons, her manager, asked her to help with checking the dogs, taking pictures and collecting samples. She went on to state that she assisted with this and found that there was blood on the akita and on the pit bull also. Rick Isham asked her if they were in that condition when received that morning. Ms. Komurka replied yes. Rick Isham asked if the animals had left the facility between the time they were received and the time the samples were taken. Ms. Kormuka replied no. Rick Isham then asked her to identify the dogs from the pictures. Ms. Komurka stated that photo #5 was of the akita taken at the shelter. She then stated that photo #3 is of the pit bull taken at the shelter. Rick Isham asked Ms. Komurka if the pictures depicted the animals as she observed them when received. She replied yes. She further identified photos #4 and #2, but was not familiar with the others. Chair Prante asked if either Mr. or Mrs. Patterson were present. They were not. Daniel Harrison was called to the stand and sworn in. Daniel Harrison, Box 7321, Bend. Rick Isham asked Dr. Harrison to explain to the Board any activities he was engaged in with respect to llamas at the Patterson Ranch on 1/23. He stated that he was called to the ranch at approximately 9:00 a.m. to work on some horses and llamas that were being shipped out of state and was in route back to Tumalo when he received an emergency call from the Pattersons stating that some llamas had been injured. DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 7 VOL 81PAGE 723 Dr. Harrison stated that he got back at approximately 10:30 a.m. at which point the llamas had been put in stalls and emergency first aid administered by the ranch hands. He stated that two of the llamas suffered multiple lacerations and contusions to the perineum, tail and head, and buttocks. He went on to state that most of the wounds were serious enough to require sutures, although they were not considered life-threatening at the time. He futher stated that superficial wounds were found in and around the ears and over the eyes of these two llamas. He also stated that all the llamas attacked were adult females. Dr. Harrison stated that the third llama's upper lip was split in half which required sutures. He further stated that in addition two lower lateral incisor teeth were fractured and broken, one of which had to be removed. Dr. Harrison stated that the fourth llama, named Carolinka was very severely injured. He stated that she had lost most of the skin and underlying tissue of the perineum, including the vulva and the area between the back of her legs all the way down to the udder. He further explained that large amounts of exposed semi -membranos is and semi-tendinosis muscle had to be surgically removed and that reconstructive surgery of the vulva and urethra took over three hours. Dr. Harrison stated that the llama was in shock due to trauma and blood loss, and in addition suffered numerous puncture-type lacerations to the face, the jowls, the throat, and the ears. He stated that it is not known whether she will survive and if she does survive, it is doubtful if she will ever be able to be bred or give birth in the future. Dr. Harrison stated that as of a few days ago, she was still in serious condition but holding her own. Rick Isham asked Dr. Harrison if in his opinion the damage inflicted on the llamas is consistent with damage done by an animal such as a dog. He replied that yes, he had seen similar injuries done to sheep by dogs. Chair Prante asked Dr. Harrison if the one seriously injured llama would ever be able to produce offspring. Dr. Harrison replied that it is doubtful because her external organs were basically removed. Chair Prante asked for any more comments from people wishing to speak against the dogs. Hearing none, she asked for comments from those wishing to speak in favor of the dogs. Shane Bowlin, 230 N Locust, Sisters, was sworn in. He stated that he is the owner of the akita-malamute mix. He stated that he came from work on the 23rd, stopped at Century Market and his brother was advised that Shane's dog had been witnessed molesting llamas with two other dogs and that they would be killed. He further stated that he took that in anger because his dog is so important to him. Shane further stated that he went to the police station at Sisters and asked Mr. Mullens and Mr. Whitney where his dog was and was told by a kicked-back and smiling Mr. Mullens that his dog was in the pound and would be destroyed. He further stated that out of anger and seeing that Mr. Mullens was DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 8 VIOL 81PACE 724 so happy about seeing his dog killed., he made threats against the llamas, but not the Pattersons themselves. He further stated that he did this out of anger, but never threatened the cops or the llama owners. He then stated that he was told he would have to contact the humane society to find out about his dog, which he did. Shane stated that he was told that Nancy would be out to his parents' house; he went to his friend Darrell's home where Nancy made contact with both of them. He stated that they talked to her outside and he was angry. He stated that Nancy told him that he had to sign a document saying that he agreed to have his dog put to sleep and that if he didn't it would be put to sleep anyway. Shane went on to state that he was very irate and went home to call his attorney and was advised to call the humane society and let them know that he did not want samples taken from his dog unless he or his vet were present, which he did. He stated that he called and was told by the humane society that samples would not be taken without his or his vet's presence, but apparently they were taken anyway. Shane stated that he believes that there is a misjudgement of character against his dog, that he is only one year and five months old. He stated that his dog does get into dog fights, but he did not believe that he would attack a llama, which is why he wanted a test taken of the blood on his dog. He stated that he does not want his dog put to sleep because he is so important to him, that he spends a lot of time with the dog and does not believe that this is right. Chair Prante asked him if his dog is often unconfined or on the loose. Shane stated no. Chair Prante asked if he was rarely unconfined or on the loose. Shane stated yes, that he was on the chain when he left for work the morning of the incident, but that it was bent and his collar slipped off of it. He further stated that his dog liked to run around with his buddy's dog. Commissioner maudlin asked Shane if he lived inside the city limits of Sisters. Shane stated that he was advised by his landlady that Officer Mullens came to his house to pick up his dog. He further stated that his parents have a dog that looks almost exactly the same as his and that you couldn't tell the dogs apart from 20 feet let alone 40 feet away. He further stated that there are more dogs in Sisters that look like his. He went on to state that people said they witnessed his dog at the store in Sisters, but he believes that people could not tell the dogs apart. Chair Prante asked for comments from any others wishing to speak. Darrell Colvard, 325 Jefferson, Sisters, was sworn in. Darrell stated that he came into town around 3:00 PM and went to the Century Market and was informed that the akita had been involved in an attack on llamas. He stated that he knew his dog (the pit bull) and the akita played together so he assumed that his dog was there also since he was told three dogs were involved. He DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 9 voIL 81PAGE 725 stated that they went to the station and were informed that the dogs had been impounded and were in Bend at the humane society. He then stated that he and Shane walked to his house and Nancy and Officer Mullens came up about five minutes later and were met outside. Darrell stated that they explained what was going on with the dogs and that Nancy did say that the Pattersons would not press charges if the dogs were destroyed. He then stated that he told Nancy that they would be willing to pay all charges over a period of time but that Nancy told him in didn't matter because the dogs would be put to sleep anyway. Darrell stated that they kept in touch with what was going on and called the humane society about the dogs. He further stated that his dog is only six months old, not very big and not able to take down a llama. Commissioner Maudlin stated that there was testimony on two occasions when Mr. Colvard and Mr. Bowlin were told that the dogs would be put to sleep anyway. He then asked Darrell if the ordinances were explained to him. Darrell stated that no, they were just given the paper and told to sign with no discussion of it. Commissioner Maudlin stated that he wanted to be sure that they read the paper and undersood their rights. Darrell stated that they did read the paper that was given to them. Darrell then stated that he was originally told that five llamas were down and that he was told various prices of the llamas. Chair Prante stated that this was really not relevant. Chair Prante asked for any more comments from those wishing to speak about the dogs. Hearing none, she then asked if there were any comments regarding llamas as livestock. Raymond W. Bowlin, 230 N. Locust, Sisters, was sworn in. Mr. Bowlin stated that he has made a lot of calls and did a lot of reading concerning llamas. He stated that he contacted the attorney general's office and was told that he would need to talk to the assistant director of agriculture, which he did. He stated that he was informed that at this time llamas are not considered livestock but most likely would be in the near future. He stated that he would need to know because of this hearing if they were legally livestock and was told that no they were not at this time. Mr. Bowlin then stated that he read in the paper about the 1981 ruling, which he doesn't feel was justified because there was nothing to base it on. He then stated that the new ruling introduced by Senator Brockman was put in just last Monday. He further stated that he believes this should have been done sooner, possibly five years ago. He stated that he did talk to the Senator and he wanted to know what the outcome of the hearing was. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Bowlin if he was aware of the 1981 Department of Justice letter of opinion. Mr. Bowlin replied no. Commissioner Throop explained that the letter was written to the DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 10 VOL 81PAGE (2U Jefferson County District Attorney at that time, and indicated that in the Department of Justice's view llamas are in fact livestock, although they were not named in the statute. Mr Bowlin replied that that was just a ruling and not law. Commissioner Throop explained that their opinions have the effect of law until either changed by the legislature or until there is a court ruling that provides a different opinion. Rick Isham explained that a formal opinion by the Attorney General constitutes a ruling of law. He further stated that the assistant Attorney General was questioned with respect to the outstanding opinion and indicated that the opinion would not be withdrawn. Commissioner Throop stated that his understanding of the state law defining livestock is not all encompassing in itself, local counties have to recognize that as a standard but does not preclude the counties from providing additional definitions. Rick Isham stated that the Deschutes County ordinance does not define livestock but uses the word throughout the ordinance, so that there is no specific ordinance provision which adds to or subtracts from the state definition. Commissioner Maudlin asked Mr. Bowlin if the assistant director of agriculture said that llamas were not livestock or not defined as livestock. Mr. Bowlin replied that he said that they are not livestock. Chair Prante asked if he had a written statement from him to that effect. Mr. Bowlin replied no. Commissioner Throop stated that if someone needs a legal interpretation from a state agency, they should speak directly to the assistant attorney general assigned to that department and not a staff person. Mr. Bowlin stated that the definition was read to him by the assistant director of agriculture. He further stated that some people believe that llamas are fur-bearing animals but that they are not. Commissioner Throop stated that not every interpretation as needed can be written into a statute, that laws that appear in the statutes do not anticipate every question. Mr. Bowlin stated that they should. Commissioner Throop stated that they shouldn't, which is why the Department of Justice and the Attorney General are necessary to interpret. Rick Isham stated that Karen Green has spoken with the assistant Attorney General assigned to the Department of Agriculture and can clarify the opinion as stated to her. Chair Prante asked Mr. Bowlin if it was correct that he had spoken to his son about keeping his dog restrained. Mr. Bowlin replied yes. Karen Green stated that she called the Department of Justice and determined that Curt Birkholder is the assistant Attorney General assigned to the Department of Agriculture. She stated that she asked him to review the December 1981 letter form Harold Burke DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 11 VOL Slnu 72 7 regarding the question of whether llamas are livestock. She stated that Mr. Birkholder told her that it was his opinion from reading the letter that the statute could be read to include or exclude llamas, that Mr. Burke's letter was a colorable interpretation that he did not feel required a withdrawl and that a court would problably interpret it in the same way, that the statute was probably intended to cover any domesticed animal including animals not specifically listed in it. Ms. Green stated that she also spoke to Melissa Campbell, who is the opinion secretary in the Department of Justice who informed her that the letter was originally requested to be issued as an Attorney General's opinion. She stated that she was told the request was withdrawn at the instance of the agency and the result is that the letter issued is simply a letter from counsel to the agency and does not carry the weight of an Attorney General's opinion. Commissioner Throop stated that regardless of the way the commission rules, either party can contest that in court. Karen Green stated that this is correct. Chair Prante belatedly swore in Karen Green. Mr. Bowlin asked that if the definition of livestock is not determined by the state, why does a state senator have this proposed. Chair Prante stated that she cannot answer for the motivation of any other individual. She stated that the present situation requires further clarification so that this does not happen again. Commissioner Throop stated that what happens when there is a question of interpretation of law one tries to get legislative clarification. Mr. Bowlin stated that he does believe that llamas should be protected as livestock, but as it stands now, he doesn't feel they are. Lynn Hyder, 6315 N. Hwy 97, Terrebonne was sworn in. He stated that in respect to the letter of December 1981, he did collect and receive damages from Jefferson County on his llama incident. He further stated that llamas have been his only source of income for five years. Mr. Hyder stated that he had no problem meeting the land use requirements for farm deferral which pertains to the raising of livestock. He made reference to his previous testimony on February 4 at a commission meeting and restated his feelings on llamas as livestock. Bill Boyer, 17575 Jordan Road, Sisters, was sworn in and stated that he is a llama-raiser and sees this question as peculiar if the paper is correct in stating that the statute reads ..."as any fur-bearing animal bred and maintained commercially or otherwise DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 12 VOL G'1P!uE 8 within pens, cages, and hutches." He stated that he believes logically that this is a catagory in which llamas belong. He further stated that those who raise llamas fear marauding dogs and that he has had four instances of neighbor dogs chasing llamas and that in one case the County had euthanized the dog involved. He stated that in another case, the owner took responsiblity and had the dog put to sleep, but in another case the owners could not believe their dogs had done such a thing. Mr. Boyer stated that the final deterent to people is the possible lose of their dog or financial setbacks. Chair Prante asked if the incident of the dog being euthanized by the County occured in Deschutes County. Mr. Boyer replied yes, approximately two years ago. Rick Isham stated that it did not come before the Board; the owners gave up the dog voluntarily. Mr. Boyer stated that it was always presumed that llamas were livestock. Myer Avedovech, Attorney, 315 NW Greenwood, Bend, was sworn in and stated that he is speaking as a llama owner and not as an attorney. He stated that he is concerned about what is going on here today. He further stated that the issue of dogs running at large is a problem to all llama owners since loses can be substantial. Mr. Avedovech stated that he strongly encourages the Board to follow the 1981 opinion of the Attorney General's office. He stated that he believes Ms. Green's comments to be accurate and he urges the Board to change the County ordinances to include llamas as livestock. Chair Prante asked Mr. Bowlin if she was correct in her understanding the he believes llamas should be protected. Mr. Bowlin replied yes. Chair Prante asked Mr. Bowlin if there was some confusion in his mind if it was his son's dog or his own dog involved in the incident. Mr. Bowlin stated that he did not get involved in this because he did not see the incident, but that his own dog was confined at the time. Commissioner maudlin stated that he has read through the ordinance and that under section 1 it says that a dog is a public nuisance if it damages or destroys the property of persons other than the owner of the dog and it goes on to say that the dog control board may, if the dog is found to be a nuisance or if the attack was determined to be vicious, order the dog killed in a humane manner, which is apart from what we are talking about here. He further stated that whether or not llamas are livestock, he believes section 1 covers this issue. Commissioner Maudlin stated that from testimony given, he believes there is no question that these dogs were involved. Chair Prante stated that this is always a difficult decision for the Board to make. She further stated that it is the responsibility of dog owners to keep their dogs confined. DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 13 KRUM MOTION: MAUDLIN moved that we find that the dogs are a public nuisance, that they did destroy property of others and attacked viciously and be put to death in the most humane manner. THROOP: Second. Shane Bowlin stated that the police came to his home to get his dog and asked if the dog was considered unconfined when it was in his driveway. Chair Prante stated that the dog is unconfined if not chained or penned. Shane became angry and stated that the dog was on his property. VOTE: MAUDLIN: Yes THROOP: Yes PRANTE: Yes The hearing was closed. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD 0 COMMISSIONERS o9SBIZOtf~w Prante, Chair Tom hDi Maudlin, Commissioner BOCC:prt 87-102 DOG HEARING MINUTES 2/6/87 PAGE 14